[2026:RJ-JD:8420]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3351/2026 Sugnaram S/o Sh. Rugharam, Aged About 90 Years, R/o Village Ladam Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, At Present R/o Ward No. 03, Near New Shiv Mandir, Suratgarh Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Dairam S/o Roshanlal, R/o Village Ladam Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, Through Power Of Attorney Holder Kanwar Singh S/o Dairam Bc Bazigar, R/o Ladam Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh, Raj.

2. Smt. Geeta W/o Mahaveer, R/o Naiyasar Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub Registrar, Pallu, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : --

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

13/02/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of order dated 09.01.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh in Civil Suit No.51/2017 whereby the application as filed on behalf of defendant No.1 for taking the written statement on record, stood rejected.

2. The facts are that a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff in the year 2017. Written statement was filed by defendant No. 2 on 29.11.2017 and on no written statement been filed on behalf of defendant No.1, the opportunity to file the same was closed vide order dated 03.01.2018.

3. The matter then proceeded to explore the possibility of settlement but the same turned out to be futile and hence, the matter was posted for plaintiff evidence on 04.09.2019. Till the year 2022, the matter kept on being adjourned for plaintiff evidence and ultimately, on 19.10.2022, an application under Section 35 of the Stamps Act was filed on behalf of the plaintiff which remains pending till date.

4. Meanwhile, the present application for taking the written statement on record was filed on behalf of defendant No.1 which stood rejected vide the order impugned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the plaintiff evidence has not even commenced and hence, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff if the written statement as filed by defendant No.1 is taken on record.

6. After hearing the Counsel and considering the specific fact that the plaintiff has been given chances to lead his evidence for more than four years by the learned trial Court, this Court deems it proper that the written statement as filed by defendant No. 1 be taken on record. This Court deems that proper also for the reason that the plaintiff evidence has not yet commenced.

7. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed at a cost of Rs. 15,000/-.

8. The learned trial Court is directed to take the written statement as filed by defendant No.1 on record and proceed further.

9. The cost be deposited by defendant No.1 before the learned Trial Court on the next date which shall be paid to the plaintiff/counsel for the plaintiff.

10. In case of non-deposit of cost, the present order shall cease to operate and the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed further.

11. However, it is made clear that if the plaintiff refuses to accept the said cost and proposes to contest the present writ petition, it would be open for him to file an application for restoration of the present writ petition and pray for recalling of the present order. In those circumstances, further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 51/2017 shall remain stayed.

12. The present order has been passed by this Court without issuing notices to the respondents, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping into consideration the fact that keeping the present petition pending after staying the further proceedings, would be against the interests of the respondent-plaintiff only.

13. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand disposed of (REKHA BORANA),J

35-manila/-